From another forum:
REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
_______________________________________
CHURCH EDIFICES
A Sign of Apostasy?
Sects (religious parties) have one common mark of distinction: Church Edifices. Each religious persuasion constructs its own “holy icon” with which to be identified. I see far more negatives than positives involved in owning property. I could give a whole “grocery store list” of reasons why believers should steer away from buying and maintaining real estate to “play church” and “conduct worship services,” but two basic reasons are the costs to build and maintain a “house of worship” and the financial obligation of supporting an elite ecclesiastic.
Too, once a “house of worship” has been constructed, the believers who created it cease being the ekklesia—“called-out ones”—and become a church—“called-in ones.” If I might quote the late Carl Ketcherside’s famous words again, “Jesus said to get out and go, but we have come in to stay.” The same brother referred to the first church structure, built in about A. D. 200, as the “deathbed of Christianity.”
Believers have become addicted to their comfort zones and neither hell nor high water will dislodge them. After all, the pews are comfortable, the indoor plumbing convenient, the milieu appealing, and the pulpiteer’s handling of “worship services” is right on time and on target. How did we ever get this way? The blame must be placed upon the shoulders of the “chief priests and elders”—the clergy and their benefactors.
I do not hesitate to affirm that our church structures and edifices are monuments that testify of our idolatry. The controversy is not whether it is right or wrong to meet somewhere. We all agree that a place or location is necessary. The issue is whether or not we have built church structures and edifices and set them apart—sanctified them—as holy expedients. I say we have. The evidence surrounds us. If I might be so bold, the modern church is as guilty of idolatry as were the children of Israel who erected Asherah poles as symbols of worship.
<><><><>
SCRIPTURES
Infallible & Authoritative?
One of my readers, in referring to the New Covenant scriptures, spoke of them as “infallible scriptures” and said they compose an “authoritative book.” Yet we know that “Easter” was not infallibly written, as well as “baptize,” “bishop,” “church,” and a lot of other biblical terms. This in itself disrupts the “infallible” argument when applied to our contemporary translations.
It was years before the early believers had one word of scripture in writing (except the Old Covenant scriptures). Their authority and infallible Guide was the Lord Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross. The apostles, of course, played a major role in defining Jesus as the infallible Guide and Commander of all authority (Matt. 28:18). Some of that authority was entrusted to the 13 apostles.
Then how should we view the New Covenant writings? Paul answers by saying that scripture approved by God is good for correction, reproof, teaching, and for helping to guide us in our walk with the Lord (2 Timothy 3:16-17). They are not our source of unity and salvation, however. But the Man those scriptures describe is!
If those writings were meant to be our authority and infallible guide, the first believers were without either. The only New Covenant scriptures that are without errors are the original autographs, which we do not have access to. The oldest Greek manuscripts are the closest we have to the original copies. I believe that through God’s providence we have those scriptures, in spite of the flaws authored by the translators. The flaws did not originate from heaven, but from fallible men.
